DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 28 May. 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends upon cancelled claim 4. For the purposes of examination claim 5 will be interpreted to depend upon claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viktor SU 1,743,887 published 30 Jun. 1992 as translated by Google (hereafter Viktor).
Regarding claim 1, Viktor teaches a device (Fig 1) for dissolving a gas in a liquid, the device comprising a device body (4), the device body comprising a liquid inlet (inlet from 1); a liquid outlet (5); a plurality of substantially conical dissolving chambers (tear drop shapes, labeled below) located between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet; and a plurality of substantially cylindrical chamber connectors (portions between tear drop shapes, labeled below) of or connected with the dissolving chambers, wherein:
each of the plurality of conical dissolving chambers comprise a wider substantially toroidal end towards the liquid outlet, the wider end comprising a chamber outlet for flow of liquid out of the dissolving chamber; and a narrower end towards the liquid inlet, the narrower end comprising a chamber inlet for flow of liquid into the dissolving chamber (as shown in Fig 1), and
[AltContent: arrow]the plurality of chamber connectors define a substantially longitudinally straight passage extending through the plurality of dissolving chambers (as shown in Fig 1).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical chambers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dissolving chambers)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches wherein the liquid outlet is situated substantially centrally within the substantially toroidal end (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches wherein the passage extending through the plurality of dissolving chambers is a substantially cylindrical passage (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches comprising at least three dissolving chambers (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches comprising at least five dissolving chambers (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches
one or more of the plurality of dissolving chambers and one or more of the plurality of chamber connectors are of a central portion of the body of the device (as shown in Fig 1);
the liquid inlet is of a base portion (portion near 1) of the body of the device, the base portion comprising a substantially conical chamber, wherein a narrower end (for instance narrower end of the 2nd or 3rd conical chamber) of the substantially conical chamber of the base portion is located away from the liquid inlet (as shown in Fig 1); and
the liquid outlet is of a tip portion (portion near 5) of the device, the tip portion of the device comprising a substantially conical chamber (last conical chamber tear shape in Fig 1), wherein a narrower end (inlet end of last conical chamber) of the substantially conical chamber of the tip portion is located away from the liquid outlet.
Regarding claim 11, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Viktor further teaches wherein the device body is a unitary body (as shown in Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hippolyte FR575697 published 4 Aug. 1924 as translated by EPO (hereafter Hippolyte).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 19, Viktor teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Viktor further teaches wherein the body comprises at least three modules (conical chambers in Fig 1), wherein:
a base (right portion of conical chambers in Fig 1) portion of the body of the device comprises at least one of the modules;
a tip portion (left portion of conical chambers in Fig 1) of the body of the device comprises at least one of the modules; and
a central portion (middle portion of conical chambers in Fig 1)of the body of the device comprises at least one of the modules.
Viktor does not teach
wherein the device body is a modular body;
wherein the modular body comprises at least three separatable modules, wherein:
a base portion of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules;
a tip portion of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules; and
a central portion of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules;
a method of adjusting the modular device of claim 12, including a step of adding and/or removing one or more separatable modules of the device.
Hippolyte teaches a fluid device (Fig 1)
wherein the device body is a modular body (threaded attachment);
wherein the modular body comprises at least three separatable modules (as shown in Fig 1; modules 5), wherein:
a base portion (portion near 4) of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules;
a tip portion (portion near 2) of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules; and
a central portion (3) of the body of the device comprises at least one of the separatable modules;
a method of adjusting the modular device of claim 12, including a step of adding and/or removing one or more separatable modules of the device (page 1; threaded attachment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body (4) of Viktor by incorporating the modular body (Fig 1) of Hippolyte in order to allow contraction and/or expansion of the number of chambers and/or to allow the device to be taken apart for storage, transport, or maintenance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights